"come out of the tombs exceeding fierce;" and the tombs of the pagans were generally open to receive the oblations to the manes of the deceased. As we have pronounced the question to be a trifling one, we shall not enlarge on it. Oribasius wrote four books also on diseases, and several others, which were chiefly abridgments of Galen. Some receipts, quoted by AEtius, seem to be his own; but the commentaries on the aphorisms of Hippocrates, attributed to him, are of a much later era. Excepting the collections, the nine books of his synopsis, addressed to the younger Eusta-thius, and four, De Euporistis, to Eunapius, are the only works which remain of this author, who certainly merits more attention than he has received.

About the same era Nemesius, bishop of Emesa, abridged the physiology of Galen, intitled Natura Ho-minis. Vindicianus, the archiater of Valentinian, addressed to that emperor his Carmen Epistolare; and Theodore Priscian, the disciple of Vindicianus, and archiater to the second Valentinian, wrote his four books De Curatione Morborum. The last work has been attributed to Q. Octavius Horatianus, the disciple of Priscian, and under his name the treatise is annexed to the Strasburg edition of Albucasis' Surgery. Several authors of this century, whose works arc still extant, merit little more than the mention of their names. The chief is Marcellus Empiricus, who wrote De Medicamentis Empiricis; Plinius Valerianus, whose work De Re Medica is referred by Gunziusto Siberius; Vegelius Renatus, a different person from the Tactitian; and Caelius Aurelianus, already noticed, the last medical author who wrote in Latin.

After the lapse of nearly one hundred years, in which scarcely the name of a physician is recorded, we meet with AEtius of Amida, of whose sixteen books (iv tetra-biblia) but eight have yet been published in Greek, though we possess the Latin version of the whole. He is chiefly distinguished as an original writer, by his chi-rurgical operations, and in this line his practice seems to have been extensive. In medicine he recommends punctures in dropsies; but the observations on these subjects are taken from Archigenes and Leonides. His remarks on cauteries, both actual and potential, are more peculiarly his own. He advises them freely in many complaints, and directs numerous drains to be made. To keep these open by tents seems to have been the improvement of a subsequent era; for in many places where caustics are recommended by AEtius, tents could not be used. Setons are only mentioned 800 years afterwards. From Leonides he also describes the dra-cunculi, by modern authors called the venae medinenses, an appellation given by the Arabians. AEtius, who had studied at Alexandria, introduced much of the Egyptian pharmacy, and was particularly fond of external applications. He introduced also charms and amulets, so common in the same country; and, though a Christian, and an officer of the emperor's household, seems not to have been exempt from credulity. Many boasted and high priced remedies he has taught us to prepare; but adds no opinion of their utility, though of other medicines, and indeed generally of those truly valuable, his encomia are usually warm.

Palladius of Alexandria was but a few years later than .AEtius, and his Synopsis of Fevers, as well as his Commentaries on different parts of Hippocrates, are still extant. He differs, however, little from the system of Galen, and merits no particular notice.

Alexander Trallian, so called from his native place, Tralles, a city in Lydia, was nearly of the same era, and a writer more original than any that have occurred to us since the days of Galen. He limits his observations to the signs of diseases and their remedies; and though he shows too great confidence in the efficacy of some apparently trifling medicines, and is particularly fond of amulets; yet, in many parts of his work, he displays great judgment, and extensive experience. His observations on bleeding in syncope are valuable, and those on the use of emetics, particularly of purgatives in fevers, highly useful. He is apparently the first author who mentions rhubarb; but he certainly means the Rhapontic, as he speaks of it only as an astringent. The white hellebore had at this period been neglected, and even Alexander speaks slightingly of it: nor was it again recommended till Asclepiades, more than fifty years afterwards, employed it with success. Alexander was by no means a servile follower of Galen. On the contrary, he frequently differs from him, and in some instances, particularly the treatment of hectics, boldly pronounces him wrong.

Though Christianity was now established, and the physicians lately mentioned were Christians, yet the next author was the first monk who wrote on, and probably practised, medicine. We shall call him Theophilus, though, from his sanctity or his talents, he was also called Philotheua and Philaretus. There is, however, a singular confusion arising from the name of Theo-philus, which was given to a cotemporary of Alexan-der, called by him Jacobus Psychresius ,or Psychochres-tus. The latter was by birth an Alexandrian, archiater to Leo the Thracian, and a count of the empire. If they were, therefore, the same, he must have become a monk in his latter years, a circumstance by no means uncom. mon. Jacobus Psychrestus left apparently behind him no medical work, though Theophilus, who by some historians is placed in the beginning of the seventh century, and certainly a different person, is the author of five books De Fabrica, in the collection of Celsus Cras-sus, and a tract De Urinis, the first work professedly on the subject, in Henry Stephens' Principes. His scholar, Stephen of Athens, was the author of a Commentary on some part of Galen's works.

Paulus of AEgina is the last author that claims our particular attention. He flourished near the end of the seventh century, and was the first physician who, by his particular notice of female diseases, appears to have paid very particular attention to them: indeed he seems to have practised midwifery. In medicine he does not merit any great regard; but his surgical observations are valuable, and often new. What relates to lithotomy and herniae are the most important parts; but the observations on aneurisms are sometimes new, and generally valuable.